$~6 and 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 18861/2025 & CM APPL. 78488/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shivam Sachdeva SPC, Mr. Yash Agrawal, Mr. Sparsh Ruhela, Adv.

Major Kanika Sharma, Army versus EX NK JAY PRAKASH GUPTA 7773030K .....Respondent Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.

7.

+ W.P.(C) 750/2026 EX NK JAY PRAKASH GUPTA SER NO 7773020 K .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shivam Sachdeva SPC, Mr. Yash Agrawal, Mr. Sparsh Ruhela, Adv.

Major Kanika Sharma, Army CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL

1. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging a common order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal has decided the Original Application (‘O.A.’) filed by the applicant/petitioner in W.P.(C) 750/2026 [O.A. No. 1818/2018] titled Ex Nk Jay Prakash Gupta v. Union of India &

Ors, by holding in paragraph 5 onwards, as under:

“5.Having heard learned counsel on both sides. we are of the view that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision in Ex. Sapper Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Another [Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1993 (arising out of SLP No. 4223 of 1992)] decided on 15.01. 1993, which has been followed by the Tribunal in large number of orders, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“….. xxx…… From the above narrated facts and the stand taken by the parties before us, the controversy that falls for determination by us is in a very narrow compass six., whether the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) has any jurisdiction to sit over the opinion of the experts (Medical Board) while dealing with the case of grant of disability pension, in regard to the percentage of the disability pension, or not. In the present case, it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was subjected to any higher Medical Board before the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) decided to decline the disability pension to the petitioner. We are unable to see as to how the accounts branch dealing with the pension can sit over the judgment of the experts in the medical line without making any reference to a detailed or higher Medical Beard which can be constituted under the relevant instructions and rules by the Director General of Army Medical Corps."

6. Subsequent to this, the Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) issued letter dated 25.04.2011, which states, “These alterations in the findings of IMB/ RMB by MAP (PCDA(P} without having physically examined the individual, do not stand to the scrutiny of law and in numerous judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the Medical Board which has physically examined should be given due weightage, value and credence.”

7. In light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex Sapper Mohinder Singh (Supra), we are satisfied that the claim for disability pension was wrongly interfered with by the administrative authority. As per the approved findings of the RMB, the applicant's disability was held ‘aggravated by service' due to 'physical stress and strain of service, and, therefore, the applicant is entitled for disability pension. As for obesity, in normal circumstances. we would have dismissed the prayer of applicant, however, there being no record to state the amount and details of obesity and in the counter affidavit also, the re8pondents have not addressed the issue of obesity of the applicant and no details are shown in this regard, particularly when the RMB has itself assessed the disability 'Hypertension with Obesity' as aggravated by service due to physical stress and strain of service, as per relevant rules and regulations and in view of the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and others [(2013} 7